[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13521-S13524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair now lays before the Senate a message 
from the House.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1932) entitled 
     ``An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
     202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95)'', do pass with the following 
     amendment.

  The bill is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
November 17, 2005.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of motions to instruct conferees with 
respect to S. 1932, and the Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now proceeding to try to appoint 
conferees for the purposes of passing, hopefully, at some point, the 
deficit reduction bill which would reduce the deficit of the United 
States by $45 to $48, maybe $49 billion and, thus, reduce the debt of 
the United States and be the first piece of legislation passed in the 
last 8 years which attempts to address one of the most serious issues 
we have as a matter of Federal spending policy, which is the issue of 
how we bring under control our entitlement accounts. It is important, 
as we move down this road, that we once again set the table as to what 
the issues are. It is a complex issue, and it is one which a lot of 
people who are not focusing on it probably do not really appreciate the 
subtleties because it is something that takes a certain amount of 
expertise or at least a fair amount of time relative to understanding 
it.
  The way the Federal spending process works is that there are 
essentially two different sets of accounts. One is discretionary. Those 
are accounts that we spend every year. They are for things such as 
national defense, education, environmental cleanup, health care, items 
which every year need to be appropriated. That is called the 
appropriations bills. They represent about a third of the Federal 
spending.
  Another set of accounts is entitlement accounts. Entitlement accounts 
are programs from which you, as American citizens or an organization, 
have a right to receive a payment. It is not a question of being 
appropriated. In other words, there doesn't have to be a law passed 
every year for you to get that expenditure like you have to do with 
national defense.
  Rather, this money, you have a right to because the law says you meet 
certain criteria. You may be a veteran. You may be a student going to 
college and you have a right to a student loan. You may be a senior 
citizen who is retired and you have a right to Social Security payments 
and you have a right to health care payments. You may be a low-income 
individual and you have a right to Medicaid payments.
  The problem we confront in the Federal Government is that although 
the discretionary accounts have been held at a very low rate of 
increase--in fact, nondefense discretionary funding has essentially 
been frozen under the budget resolution we passed. That freeze has been 
enforced through what is known as spending caps, where in order to go 
past this essential freeze, you have to have a supermajority to do it. 
On the entitlement side, there is no way in the regular order of the 
Senate to control the rate of growth in entitlement spending because, 
for a certain number of people or programmatic activity, the payment 
must be made. We confront a fiscal tsunami, driven by the fact that we 
are facing the largest retired generation in the history of this 
country, the baby boomers.
  As Chairman Greenspan pointed out in what was essentially his wrap-up 
statement as to what he thought were the concerns we as a Nation should 
be looking at in the area of fiscal policy--or maybe not his last 
statement but maybe a major policy statement made in London. He said 
the one thing that most concerned him was the fact that the baby boom 
generation--this large generation born after World War II, through the 
1950s--when it hits the retirement system, tremendous demands are going 
to be put on the Federal Treasury and, therefore, on the taxpayers of 
the country--the younger generation who are trying to earn and have a 
good lifestyle--are going to be overwhelmed. We are essentially going 
to confront the situation where we will have so many people retired 
compared to the number of people working that those people who are 
working are going to have to pay a disproportionate amount of their 
income in order to support the retired generation, and it will be to a 
level that will essentially eliminate or dramatically reduce our 
children's and grandchildren's ability to have a quality lifestyle. 
These pages today are going to have a tax burden that is so high that 
basically their ability to buy a house, to send their children to 
college, to have a quality of life that is equal to or better than 
ours--which is, of course, what we hope to pass on to our children--
will be dramatically reduced.
  To put this in context of dollars--and the dollars are so big it is 
hard to understand it--there is presently $47 trillion of unfunded 
liability out there to support the generation that is about to hit the 
retirement system. That is an unfunded liability. That means there is 
no way anybody knows how to pay for those programs. The vast majority 
of that is in the health care area, where there is about $24 trillion 
of unfunded liability between the Medicare and the Medicaid systems. 
Those numbers were not numbers I thought up or even that CBO thought up 
or OMB thought up, the in-house accounting groups we turn to for 
advice. Those numbers came from the independent, totally objective 
source of the Comptroller's office.
  So we confront this huge cost, and the issue for us as policymakers 
and as

[[Page S13522]]

shepherds of hopefully a better America for our children is how do we 
address that so we don't pass on to them this massive debt.
  In the last 8 years, we have done nothing about the entitlements. 
This section of the Federal spending apparatus has basically been 
ignored, except that new programs have been added. In the last 4 years, 
we have seen the largest increase in the history of the country added 
to entitlements in the prescription drug program, an $8 trillion 
unfunded liability in that program. So this year in the budget process, 
the Republican majority, with the exception of a few Members, decided 
that we would try, for the first time in 8 years, to actually do 
something about the entitlement accounts, and we passed something 
called reconciliation instructions, which essentially is a program by 
which we say as a Congress to the committees of jurisdiction, look at 
your entitlement spending programs, look at the health care programs, 
the farm programs, the various education programs and see if there is 
not some way, without significantly impacting the quality of those 
programs or the economic integrity of those programs or the benefit of 
those programs to the people--isn't there some way we can rein in their 
rate of growth so they will be more affordable for our children's 
generation to pay for it.
  It is the first time we have tried this in 8 years. We didn't pick a 
big number to hit. It is a big number, but in the context of the 
Federal spending it is not that big a number. For example, in the 
Medicaid area, we suggested that the rate of growth be slowed by $10 
billion. That is a big number, but in the context of total Medicaid 
spending, it is not. Total Medicaid spending over the 5-year period, 
which we asked for a $10 billion savings in, will be $1.2 trillion. So 
$10 billion is actually less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that total 
spending, and it will slow the rate of growth of Medicaid spending from 
somewhere around 40.5 percent down to 40 percent. That is the rate of 
growth. Forty-percent growth will still occur in the Medicaid account, 
even if we hit the target that the Senate has proposed. So we are 
trying as a Congress now to reach agreement on this package of 
proposals to rein in the rate of growth of Medicaid spending and other 
entitlement account spending, and we hope to have a package within the 
$40 billion to $50 billion range. That is a big number, but today we 
need to get to conference to do that. We have to meet with the House. 
That is the way it works. We have to go to conference and talk about 
it.
  Some would like to give instructions to the conference as to what the 
conference should do. Now, it is the legitimate right of everybody in 
the Senate to offer a motion of instruction before you go to 
conference. That is so the other side of the aisle, coupled with some 
Members on our side, have asked to set up a set of motions for 
instructions. I believe seven will be proposed, and we will hopefully 
get a vote on conferees. There is an irony to this--in fact, it is more 
than irony. Other terms may be more appropriate, but I will not use 
them. But in every instance the people who are offering--the primary 
offerers--the motions to instruct conferees did not vote for the 
budget. None of them. They did not vote for the budget. There was one 
cosponsor of one of these who did vote for it, and I appreciate her 
vote; it was the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. But she is not the 
prime sponsor of it. The prime sponsors of those proposals did not vote 
for the budget. They not only didn't vote for the budget which had in 
place the spending restraint which froze discretionary spending and put 
into place the caps necessary to control discretionary spending and put 
in place the entitlement reconciliation instructions which would allow 
us to move forward with a reconciliation bill and try to control 
spending--so the sponsors of these instructions didn't vote for any 
spending restraint proposals and now they want to instruct the 
conference as to how to proceed. And then having not voted for the 
budget when the reconciliation bill came to the floor, which bill 
involved, when it passed the Senate, $3 billion of savings, deficit 
reduction, savings in spending, deficit reduction--they didn't vote for 
that--none of the sponsors of these motions to instruct the conferees 
voted to control spending by voting for the deficit reduction package 
or to control spending by voting for a budget. And now they come to the 
floor in an act of what I think is exceptional irony, and they wish to 
advise and tell and instruct the people who are going to try to put 
together a bill to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt as to what 
should be done. And in most instances, most of these instructions don't 
reduce the debt, don't reduce the deficit, but actually increase the 
debt and increase spending.

  As was noted yesterday by the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the 
committee that has jurisdiction over this issue, the trade instruction 
in this bill, which is directed at a special interest program, will 
actually cost the American taxpayers about $3 billion.
  So having voted against the budget to reduce spending, having voted 
against the deficit reduction bill to reduce spending, they now come to 
the floor and in an act of extraordinary irony suggest instructing the 
people who are trying to put together some fiscal responsibility around 
here that they should spend more money or should have less available to 
spend.
  I think these motions to instruct should be taken with a large grain 
of salt because of that fact. It would be credible if somebody who had 
voted for this deficit reduction bill offered a motion to instruct, 
especially if it is was an instruction, hopefully, to get more deficit 
reduction, and it would be credible if somebody who had voted for the 
budget resolution offered an instruction. But most of these instruction 
requests are not being offered in the context of trying to save funds, 
reduce the deficit, and reduce the debt, but are actually being offered 
for the purposes of increasing spending, increasing the debt, and 
increasing the deficit.
  So we go forward with this exercise today of motions to instruct, but 
I think they need to be put in context, and that is what I have tried 
to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate disagrees 
to the House amendment, requests a conference with the House, and 
authorizes the Chair to appoint conferees with a ratio of 11 to 9.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] moves that the managers 
     on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the bill S. 1932 be instructed to insist that any conference 
     report shall not include the provisions contained in section 
     8701 of the House amendment relating to the repeal of section 
     754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the motion that I am offering today, with 
Senator Byrd's support, urges the Senate conferees on the 
reconciliation bill to oppose efforts by the House to eliminate current 
law, to eliminate the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.
  This act, which is current law, which Senator Byrd and I originally 
introduced in 1999 and which was signed into law in 2000, continues to 
play a very important role in defending American companies from the 
injuries that unfair trade causes to American workers.
  Repealing this legislation would be a grievous mistake. Let there be 
no mistake about it, this is about jobs. This is about American jobs. 
This is about protecting and saving jobs all across our great country 
and in my home State of Ohio, as well as in 47 other States. This is 
about punishing illegal trade practices, and it is about giving 
something back to the victims.
  The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act is really very simple. 
We have heard a lot of talk about it. We have heard some criticism 
about it. But when you boil it down, it is very simple.

  When foreign companies illegally violate our trade laws, they get 
punished. They get fined. What this act does is it takes those fines 
and gives them to the companies that were harmed instead of giving the 
money back to the U.S. Treasury. That is it. That is what it does. This 
compensation provides these injured companies and their workers with a 
remedy and helps them recover

[[Page S13523]]

from the damage done by the illegal trade practices.
  Without this financial compensation, companies would continue to get 
hurt, jobs would continue to be lost, and that would be the end of the 
story. When we passed this bill a few years ago, we began to change 
that.
  The truth is these foreign violators of the law--and that is what 
they are, they are violators of the law--think that this is just a cost 
of doing business, and they continue to do it. That is why we labeled 
this bill the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. The point is 
they continue to do it. They look at the penalties they pay as a cost 
of doing business.
  The idea behind this act when we passed it was we were not going to 
let them continue to get away with that and look at this as a cost of 
doing business. So instead of taking this money and giving it to the 
U.S. Treasury and letting them go merrily on their way, we would take 
this money and give it to the affected companies so these U.S. 
companies who employ U.S. workers could then take that money and invest 
it back into those companies, invest it for U.S. workers. That is what 
they have to do by law. And it has worked.
  After the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was implemented a 
few years ago, the disbursement reports have demonstrated the full 
extent of the dumping and the unfair trade problems our country faces. 
Let me give an example.
  In 2004, no less than 458 companies received funds through this act. 
That means 458 of them were violated, had been abused. Across the 
United States, more than 700 producers in 48 States have received 
distributions from duties collected under our trade laws under this act 
which tells us that nearly every State in the United States of America 
is affected by unfair trade. Virtually every Senator in this body 
represents a State that has been helped by this law.
  These recipients range from large, medium, small companies to family-
owned businesses, independent workers, farmers, and fishermen. In my 
home State of Ohio alone, over 35 companies have benefited from the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, including businesses in 
Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Youngstown, Warren, and Wooster.
  The financial distributions have allowed businesses to reinvest in 
their operations, train workers, provide health care and pension 
programs, and keep high-wage, high-skilled jobs in our country. It 
matters. It is important.
  Despite the many benefits that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act has given our economy, some opponents argue that we must 
repeal it. Why? They say we must repeal it to comply with the WTO's 
rulings against the law. We must follow what the WTO tells this 
Congress to do, tells this country what to do. I disagree.
  There is no reason the United States should abandon this law as an 
effective tool in trade talks. Why should we give it up? Like my friend 
and colleague, Senator Craig, said on this floor yesterday, there is 
nothing in any WTO ruling that tells countries what to do with the 
proceeds from the fines collected from illegal trade practices. We 
never agreed to that. The United States never entered into any 
agreement where we said we couldn't do this.
  Why are we letting the WTO tell us these fines can't go back to the 
true victims, can't go back to the companies and the employees, can't 
go back to the people who have been hurt by foreign companies' dumping 
practices?
  I find it somewhat ironic that some of the people who want to repeal 
this law that has worked so well are some of my same colleagues who 
come to the floor and talk about and criticize activist judges in the 
United States. We do not like activist judges in the United States. We 
do not like judges who dream up laws, who go beyond the letter of the 
law, who go beyond what Congress has written. Why do we want then to 
follow the WTO when the WTO goes well beyond any agreement this country 
has entered into? Why do we want to follow them down the road when they 
have been creative, when they have been activists? Why do we want to 
follow the logic that says we have to follow them? It makes no sense. 
They are the ones who are being the activist judges, so to speak. We 
should not do it.
  The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act enjoys broad bipartisan 
support in this Chamber because Members know that the act has provided 
a lifeline to thousands of manufacturers, farmers, and fishermen 
throughout our Nation, people who have faced aggressive, unfair trade 
practices on the part of foreign producers.
  Over the past couple of years, at least 71 other Senators currently 
serving in this body have joined me in opposing the act's repeal. 
Today--and tomorrow when we vote on it--we need to reiterate that 
support and to vote to build upon our past successes.
  Unless our laws work to encourage all competitors to play by the 
rules, it is more difficult for U.S. producers to regain a declining 
market share and it makes it impossible to restore jobs that have been 
lost. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act is simply good 
public policy. It helps ensure that our domestic producers can compete 
freely and fairly in global markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose its repeal.
  I conclude by one additional comment. I have heard people say that 
this act, this law, represents special interests. I am dumbfounded by 
that comment. When in the world did it become a special interest to 
protect American jobs? When is looking out for American workers a 
special interest? Are American workers a special interest group? Is 
making sure we have a level playing field in regard to trade practices 
a special interest? Are American workers a special interest group? I am 
dumbfounded by that comment. I do not understand it.
  I am the strongest supporter in the world of free trade, fair trade, 
but to say that a law such as this that only goes into effect when it 
has already been proven that there has been a violation of trade laws, 
when it has already been proven that there has been illegal dumping, a 
law that only does the simple thing of compensating victims who have 
suffered by illegal dumping, and to say that is special interest 
legislation, I do not understand it. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Seventy-one of my colleagues in this body who are currently serving 
have said this is not special interest, that standing up for American 
workers is the right thing to do. I hope the day never comes when 
Members of the Senate think that standing up for American workers is 
special interest. So I hope when this vote comes, probably tomorrow, we 
will do what we have every right to do, and that is to instruct the 
conferees on what the will of the Senate is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to send a motion to the desk to 
instruct conferees on the budget reconciliation package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous motion is 
temporarily set aside.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I assume my colleague has his own time 
under the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, and that will be used.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the bill S. 1932 be instructed to insist that any conference 
     report shall not include any of the provisions in the House 
     amendment that reduce funding for the child support program 
     established under part D of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), which would reduce funds by 
     $4,900,000,000 over 5 years and have the effect of reducing 
     child support collections by $7,900,000,000 over 5 years and 
     $24,100,000,000 over 10 years, and to insist that the 
     conference report shall not include any restrictions on the 
     ability of States to use Federal child support incentive 
     payments for child support program expenditures that are 
     eligible for Federal matching payments.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am offering the motion on behalf of myself 
and Senators Snowe, Harkin, Cornyn, Obama, Rockefeller and Kennedy. We 
are asking conferees to reject the deep

[[Page S13524]]

cuts that the House made to the child support enforcement program. 
Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to speak on this matter, and 
so I will keep my comments brief.
  I would hope that this would be a simple vote for my colleagues. The 
Senate needs to send a strong message to conferees that the cuts the 
House supported are unacceptable. I would like to remind my colleagues 
what those cuts are, and what they mean. The House slashes funding for 
the child support enforcement program by 10 percent, which is nearly 
$16 billion which will be cut in the next 10 years. In addition, the 
House language prevents States from drawing down Federal funds based on 
their performance incentive payments.
  What does that mean for States, and more importantly, what will it 
mean for hard working American families? According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, the House cuts will reduce child support collections by 
nearly $7.9 billion in the next 5 years and $24.1 billion in the next 
10 years. My State stands to lose $308 million in Federal funding over 
the next 10 years, and will lose approximately $468 million in child 
support collections.
  Cutting the child support enforcement program is counterproductive. 
It means cutting one of the most successful, cost-effective Federal 
programs in existence. In 2004, the program collected $21.9 billion, 
while total costs were kept at $5.3 billion, which is greater than a $4 
dollar return on every dollar the Federal Government invested. In fact, 
collections are rising faster than expenditures. Child support programs 
are increasing their cost-efficiency.
  Being cost-effective, however, is not the greatest achievement of the 
child support program. Sixty percent of all single parent families 
participate in the child support program, and participants are 
primarily former welfare families or working families with modest 
incomes. It is proven that the child support program directly increases 
self-sufficiency and that families receiving child support are more 
likely to leave welfare and less likely to return. So these cuts have 
no place in a deficit-reducing measure. If congress cuts this program, 
it will ultimately push more people onto other Federal aid programs.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that the Senate already has 
a strong record on this issue. Two weeks ago we unanimously adopted an 
amendment offered by Senator Harkin, a sense of the Senate in 
opposition to these cuts. Members from both sides of the aisle have 
consistently opposed the cuts, with the backing of a number of groups, 
ranging from the National Governors Association to the Information 
Technology Association of America.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to find out how these cuts will affect 
their constituents, and would urge them to vote based on the families 
these cuts will impact.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________